‘Green' isn't always good, or bankable

Tseming Yang, former deputy general counsel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, illustrates the false prophecy of government intervention and manipulation of the “green-energy market” and the consistently misleading statements by these so-called experts [“Exploring energy possibilities,” Opinion, Feb. 19]. Yang correctly states that China is the global leader in manufacturing and in sales of clean-energy products. Why? Because they undercut the market and buy U.S. companies to create a monopoly.

For example, Yang cites Tesla as the “cutting-edge” of fuel-cell equipment. Last I read, Tesla is near bankruptcy and was paired in lockstep with A123 Systems batteries, which is already bankrupt, and, interestingly, in the process of purchase by, you guessed it, a Chinese company.

Further demonstrating the U.S. government's attempt to manipulate the message and market of clean energy is an article about Fisker Automotive [“Fisker weighs bids, including from Dongfeng,” Business, Feb. 19], another company held up by the extreme environmentalists and the government as the wave of the future. Unfortunately, Fisker has not made any cars recently, because it, too, relied on A123 batteries as its only battery producer. Fisker is now seeking a buyer to avoid bankruptcy. Surprise! Yes, another Chinese company is leading the contest to purchase Fisker.

Besides being failed or failing companies, what do Tesla, A123 and Fisker have in common? They all received money from the U.S. government, aka, we the taxpayers.

In summary, we know this: Companies that are formed to push clean energy receive money from U.S. taxpayers, fail, are trumpeted by some in academia (usually environmental zealots), most likely will never pay the taxpayers back and then are absorbed by various Chinese companies. This scenario is more often the outcome rather than the rare case of companies that exist primarily because the government gave them money.

J. Lowe

Anaheim

Pipeline trade-offs

The proposed expansion of the Keystone Pipeline would cost the country $7 billion and has potential to create an enormous amount of jobs in the United States and in Canada. With boosts to the economy on both sides, and with the U.S. developing a conflict-free energy partnership with Canada versus the already-volatile relationships with nations of the Middle East, one would think expansion of the Keystone pipeline is a necessary project for the country.

However, many environmentalists protest further development. The pipeline's long route allows opportunity for oil spills that threaten plants, wildlife and residents near the route. Also, the Canadian tar sands are nearly the size of Florida and produce excessive amounts of greenhouse gases, diminish air quality, destroy natural habitats and contaminate underground and surface water supplies.

So, when considering whether the nation would benefit from expanding the Keystone pipeline, one should question if the 50,000 construction jobs created, that are not permanent, are worth the pipeline's potential to destroy the environment it will be running through.

Amber Gordon

Chino Hills

Buss ‘built' Lakers

The heavens are crying in Los Angeles today with the passing of Jerry Buss. He was a self-made man who brought joy to millions of Americans. But, let's not forget that he was a rich guy who “didn't build that.” He “didn't play by the same rules like the rest of us.” He needs to pay his “fair share,” according to our dear leader. He didn't build the roads outside the Forum or Staples Center. He didn't build the water systems.

The Lakers are worth about

$1 billion. Inheritance tax (a wealth tax) is 55 percent, so Buss family, fork over your fair share, $550 million, to the federal government. The O'Malley family had to sell the Dodgers when Walter died to pay their taxes. Maybe we can expect the Buss family to do the same. No? Maybe they have a slick way that the rich avoid taxes – not paying their fair share.

What a tragedy that the government taxes wealth. Isn't taxing income enough? It seems today that there is never enough for our rulers. Buss worked hard to grow an estate for his children. Why is he not allowed to pass it along to his children? So, pay the piper, Buss family. After all, Jerry “didn't build that.”

Phil Hoskins

San Clemente

State economy slipping

Recently, several Register editorials have touted California as the world's 10th-largest economy, as if that is positive. Sadly, it only points out a disturbing state trend. When Ronald Reagan was running for president, he proudly boasted that he had been governor of a state with the world's sixth-largest economy. When Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor, he stated the same thing, only to be corrected that California had dropped to eighth place. Now it is 10th.

Unfortunately, with its bloated government, high taxes and hostile business environment leading to high unemployment and enormous welfare rolls, it seems inevitable that California's ranking as a world economic engine will continue to slip.

As an eternal optimist who loves this state, it pains me to say that, unless there are drastic changes in Sacramento, which is looking more unlikely with each election cycle, it is clear to any objective observer that California's best days are in the past.

Jeff Thomas

Irvine

A paranoid future?

A friend of mine from the Midwest said that one of her kids is suffering nightmares from all the tornadoes and, now, active-shooter drills at her daughter's junior high school. She now requires some counseling as a result. Two other women told me the same thing.

Considering the Stranger Danger programs to the DARE drug program to tornado and earthquake drills and now “shooter on campus” drills, is it any wonder more kids are pulling their hair out with fear?

Children are told they are not safe anywhere, under any circumstances, and that they must be on the alert for the worse-case scenario at all times. It's like they are deployed, and officials are causing post-traumatic stress disorder in our kids.

Life was far simpler when I was a kid. All we had were duck-and-cover exercises in case the communists dropped a nuke on us. It wouldn't have helped, but at least we would have gone out feeling safe.

Michael R. Sumners

Santa Ana

Guns: a cultural divide

Professor Gary Kleck suggests that gun owners may have qualities that make them more susceptible to suicide [“Guns play key role in suicides,” Focus, Feb. 18]. I suggest that his conjecture is an excellent illustration of the cultural divide on guns.

People who cannot imagine why anyone would own a firearm know nothing about guns or people who own them. They tend to be from states with areas of high population densities, where the murder rate is high.

People in “tractor country” who grew up with a few guns in the household (as did I), and where a gun was not a novelty to be used by kids to show off but was as common as a shovel, are almost universally law-abiding individuals from states with low gun-related violence.